From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_shmem_allocations view |
Date: | 2014-08-18 16:37:18 |
Message-ID: | 20140818163718.GB23679@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-08-18 12:33:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2014-08-18 12:27:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Should we consider putting it into an extension rather than having
> >> it in the core system? That would offer some additional protection
> >> for production systems, which really shouldn't have much need for
> >> this IMO.
>
> > I'd considered that somewhere upthread and decided that it'd require
> > exposing to much internals from shmem.c/dsm.c without a corresponding
> > benefit.
>
> Well, we could have the implementation code in those modules but not
> provide any SQL-level access to it without installing an extension.
> The only extra thing visible in the .h files would be a function or two.
That'd require wrapper functions in the extension afaics. Not that that
is prohibitive, but a bit inconvenient. At least I don't see another way
to create a sql function referring to a builtin C implementation. I
don't think PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1() can reliably made work. We could have
the underlying function in pg_proc, but not create the view...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-08-18 16:39:09 | Re: Reporting the commit LSN at commit time |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-08-18 16:33:44 | Re: pg_shmem_allocations view |